From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jun 23 19:31:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 24 Jun 2001 02:31:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 93519 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2001 02:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jun 2001 02:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2001 02:31:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.a9.1757d67c (3877) for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:31:30 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: kona, but not the coffee To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a9.1757d67c.2866ab02_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a9.1757d67c.2866ab02_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/23/2001 4:17:00 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > > "ko" is not a UI (thank ya, Jesus!), for example, > > nor clearly connected with any of the emotions listed in the book. > > i pe'i le nu cusku zo ko pe seba'i zo do cu jarco le nu cinmo da i lo > nu cpecni a lo nu bigycni a lo simsa i pe'i su'o le selcni valsi cu > mapti ro te pilno be zo ko da no'i ma mu'a As I said, imperatives come out of any emotion or none and the emotions may be totally unrelated to what is commanded. I may tell my worst enemy to duck to avoid a flying hazard purely out of reflex, for an extreme example. > > <> Nor is commanding an act who > > primary function is to express an emotion -- its primary function is > to get > > someone to do something; the rest is incidental, if it occurs at > all. > > i ki'u ma le tavla cu djica le nu le se tavla cu gasnu da i na xu > srana le nu le tavla cu cinmo da pe le se djica> He is the intermediary in a chain of command, just passing it on down, and totally indifferent to what he is telling the subordinate to do. Or he wants to get home for lunch and passing the buck will clear his desk or reflex, as in the case above or... Certainly no specific is involved. > > > As for using > > only the emotion words, I'm not sure (and I don't know how to settle > it) > > whether any emotion word or combination of them has exactly the > force of an > > imperative -- certainly none has the rehetorical force in any > language I > > know of, but Lojban may be odd. > > i xu do djuno le du'u makau smuni zoi zoi imperative zoi poi se pilno > do i le du'u simsa le glibau na se zanru > In Lojban, the imperative form is one containing {ko} (grammatical definition, comparable to the English definition "sentence with suppressed second person subject."). Imperative is the most direct form of directive speech (functional definition - - fits both the English and the Lojban cases). In this latter sense, at least, the similarity to English is approved, being in the Book. The earlier sense is too, at least historically, since the original Loglan imperative was the bare subject form, with the {ko} coming in to make room for observatives and to bring 1st argument into parity with the others. --part1_a9.1757d67c.2866ab02_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/23/2001 4:17:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
araizen@newmail.net writes:

la pycyn cusku di'e

> "ko" is not a UI (thank ya, Jesus!), for example,
> nor clearly connected with any of the emotions listed in the book.

i pe'i le nu cusku zo ko pe seba'i zo do cu jarco le nu cinmo da i lo
nu cpecni a lo nu bigycni a lo simsa i pe'i su'o le selcni valsi cu
mapti ro te pilno be zo ko

da no'i ma mu'a
As I said, imperatives come out of any emotion or none and the emotions may
be totally unrelated to what is commanded. I may tell my worst enemy to duck
to avoid a flying hazard purely out of reflex, for an extreme example.

<> Nor is commanding an act who
> primary function is to express an emotion -- its primary function is
to get
> someone to do something; the rest is incidental, if it occurs at
all.

i ki'u ma le tavla cu djica le nu le se tavla cu gasnu da i na xu
srana le nu le tavla cu cinmo da pe le se djica>

He is the intermediary in a chain of command, just passing it on down, and
totally indifferent to what he is telling the subordinate to do. Or he wants
to get home for lunch and passing the buck will clear his desk or reflex, as
in the case above or...
Certainly no specific is involved.

> As for using
> only the emotion words, I'm not sure (and I don't know how to settle
it)
> whether any emotion word or combination of them has exactly the
force of an
> imperative -- certainly none has the rehetorical force in any
language I
> know of, but Lojban may be odd.

i xu do djuno le du'u makau smuni zoi zoi imperative zoi poi se pilno
do i le du'u simsa le glibau na se zanru

In Lojban, the imperative form is one containing {ko} (grammatical
definition, comparable to the English definition "sentence with suppressed
second person subject."). Imperative is the most direct form of directive
speech (functional definition - - fits both the English and the Lojban
cases). In this latter sense, at least, the similarity to English is
approved, being in the Book. The earlier sense is too, at least
historically, since the original Loglan imperative was the bare subject form,
with the {ko} coming in to make room for observatives and to bring 1st
argument into parity with the others.
--part1_a9.1757d67c.2866ab02_boundary--